To what extent is it possible to characterise agricultural production in the sixteenth-seventeenth centuries as subsistence agriculture? Give reasons for your answer.
Agricultural production in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries cannot be characterised solely as subsistence agriculture. While peasants cultivated basic staples, the Mughal state encouraged the cultivation of jins-i kamil (perfect crops) like cotton and sugarcane to yield higher revenue.
Cotton was grown over central India and the Deccan, while Bengal was famous for sugar. Cash crops also included oilseeds and lentils. Since many crops were grown for sale, trade and markets linked agricultural areas with towns. Consequently, subsistence and commercial production were closely intertwined in an average peasant’s holding.
Explanation
The answer clarifies that while subsistence farming existed, it was not the exclusive mode of production. The textbook explicitly states that the focus on staples did not mean agriculture was only for subsistence. The state's encouragement of 'jins-i kamil' (cash crops) for revenue and the presence of markets linking villages to towns confirms the commercial aspect. The key takeaway is the intertwining of subsistence and commercial production.
Solution Steps
Step 1: Identify that agriculture was not 'only for subsistence' despite the focus on basic staples.
Step 2: Mention the role of the Mughal state in encouraging cash crops (jins-i kamil) like cotton and sugarcane for revenue.
Step 3: Note the geographical spread of cash crops (Cotton in Central India/Deccan, Sugar in Bengal) and the presence of markets.
Step 4: Conclude that subsistence and commercial production were 'closely intertwined' in a peasant's holding.